Amar Karmkar vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4205 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                             W.P.(C) No. 4360 of 2003
       Amar Karmkar                                               .... .. ... Petitioner
                                     Versus
       The State of Jharkhand & Ors.                              .. ... ... Respondents
                                      ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO .........

       For the Petitioner                     : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate
       For the resp-state                     : Mr. Rohit, AC to AAG-I
       For the Pvt.-respondent No.5           : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, Advocate
                      ......
06/ 16.11.2021.
               Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Nitu Sinha has submitted that petitioner- Amar Karmkar has preferred the writ petition for quashing the order dated 12.12.2002 (Annexure-1), passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Collector, Pakur in Case No.01 of 2002-2003 whereby the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner, Amar Karmkar has been rejected, affirming the order dated 29.04.2002, passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur in Case No.82 of 2001-2002 in Case No.82 of 2001-02 under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initiation of the proceeding under the Minimum Wages Act itself was bad in law as, as per the claim of the workmen (respondent no.5- Sri Birendra Prasad), the dispute is not with regard to the rates of wages, but it is with regard to the period for which the workmen, respondent no.5 has worked which ought to be decided, in view of the prevalent notification issued by the State Government.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that this case cannot be entertained under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 rather it ought to have been considered under the payment of wages act, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Town Municipal Council, Athani vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Hubli & Others, reported in AIR 1969 SC 1335, para 6, in the case of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. vs. Chandi Lal Saha & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 520, para 17 and the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Nirmal Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2003 (2) JLJR 442, Learned counsel for the pvt.-respondent, Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma has submitted that though he has filed counter-affidavit, but he has not been served the copy of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, as such, the same may be served upon him and the matter may be adjourned for Monday i.e. 22.11.2021.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Rohit, AC to AAG-I has submitted that he will assist this Court properly on next date.

Put up this case on Monday i.e. 22.11.2021.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

R.S.